RESEARCH Open Access

Tracing innovation pathways in themanagement of natural and social capitalon Laikipia Maasai Group Ranches, KenyaStaline Kibet1*, Moses Nyangito1, Laban MacOpiyo1 and David Kenfack2

Abstract

Group ranches (GRs) were established in Kenya in the 1960s and 1970s; their objectives included the increase ofpastoral land productivity and the control of land degradation. Since their establishment, GRs have evolved andnew trends have emerged in resource management with significant impact on socio-ecological systems (SESs).Little is known about these changes on the GRs in Laikipia County. The central thesis for this study was that GR-level-driven and/or collective action innovations are socio-ecologically more resilient compared to household/individual-level strategies. This study investigated emerging innovations, their drivers and perceived and feltimpacts, using Il Motiok GR as a case study. Tools used included semi-structured interviews, key informantinterviews, focus group discussions and second order cybernetics. Qualitative analysis using SPSS software wasdone. The results showed that emerging innovations could be divided into either household/individual- orcommunity-level-driven processes. Some of the innovations in natural capital management included the trading ofgrazing rights, expansion of traditional enclosures, adoption of ‘new’ livestock species and/or breeds, and cropcultivation. Household-level-driven innovations were influenced by wealth status, age and level of education.Economic returns and to some extent the greater good influenced community-driven initiatives. Formal groupingssuch as self-help groups and business associations were replacing declining traditional social networks based onclans and age sets/groups. Climate change, development agencies, cultural and technological change andneighbourhood social learning are perceived as having inspired the innovations. Innovations that fragmentednatural and social capital were inclined to limit socio-ecological resilience. Implementation of new interventionsamong communities must factor in the possibilities of transformation and/or emergence of new innovationsbeyond those initially conceptualised as implementation progresses. Supportive policies that recognise theincreasing complexity of common property use are needed to address emerging ‘new’ land use changes.Furthermore, there is need to nurture emergent promising innovations and stop those considered detrimental tothe sustainability of SESs.

Keywords: Group ranches, Innovations, Laikipia, Pastoralists, Socio-ecological system, Resilience

BackgroundPastoralism in Eastern Africa has faced many challengesin recent decades, including an increase in climatevariability and subsequent effects on forage and wateravailability, the declining authority of traditional institu-tions that effectively managed range resources in thepast (Bekure et al. 1991; Sundstrom et al. 2012), reduced

access to grazing land attributable to changes in tenuresystems and other policies (Thornton et al. 2006), as wellas the increase in human population (Bekure et al. 1991;Kiteme et al. 1998). The devastating drought events of1969, the 1970s and the 1980s, with significant relianceon international food aid, together with the initiation ofrange development trials increased the vulnerability ofpastoral communities (Oba 1994). Experiments withrange development projects such as range enclosures,block grazing, group ranches, range improvement andrehabilitation were implemented across the Eastern

* Correspondence: staline@uonbi.ac.ke; kibets3k@gmail.com1Department of Land Resource Management and Agricultural Technology,University of Nairobi, P. O. Box 29052, 00625 Nairobi, KenyaFull list of author information is available at the end of the article

Pastoralism: Research, Policyand Practice

© 2016 The Author(s). Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, andreproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link tothe Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Kibet et al. Pastoralism: Research, Policy and Practice (2016) 6:16 DOI 10.1186/s13570-016-0063-z

African rangelands with the goal of building or restoringthe resilience of ecosystems. At the same time, alterna-tive economies to pastoralism that involved sedentarisa-tion (for example, dryland farming, irrigated agricultureand fisheries) were also introduced, often with minimalsuccess (Oba 1994). The establishment of group ranches(GRs) seems to have received more attention than otherpolicies. There is an extensive literature on the establish-ment of GRs, pointing out some of the inherent problemsof the model as well as challenges to their implementation(Coldham 1982; Galaty 1994; Kimani et al. 1998; Bekureet al. 1991; Ngethe 1992; Peacock 1987).In the last decade, several studies have focused on im-

pacts of the subdivision of GRs to plots held under indi-vidual freehold tenure. Such impacts may be on wildlife(Wayumba et al. 2006; Western et al. 2009), on thelivelihood of agro-pastoral households (Burnsilver andMwangi 2007; Thornton et al. 2006), on livestock popu-lations (Boone et al. 2005) and on social capital andtraditional management systems (Sundstrom et al. 2012).A recent development in the transformation of GRs hasbeen the establishment of grazing associations, in whichfriends or neighbours agree to graze their privately-owned land jointly, with the aim of increasing livestockmobility and thus avoiding land degradation from year-round grazing (Burnsilver and Mwangi 2007). Significantamounts of research have been done on Maasai GRs,but most of these studies focused largely on thesouthern Kenya rangelands, particularly those in Kajiadoand Narok Counties. Fewer studies have been done onthe Laikipia Maasai GRs (Hauck 2013). Despite theunderlying similarity of objectives and circumstancesamong most GRs at their establishment, since then, thesouthern and northern rangeland GRs have differed intheir evolutionary paths. One notable divergence be-tween them is the increased individualisation of opera-tions in southern GRs, compared to the retention offairly collective actions in the north. At the time of writ-ing, the northern GRs have yet to subdivide their landinto individual freehold parcels. In the recent past, nineGRs have ‘consolidated’ their land parcels for wildlifemanagement and conservation under an umbrellabody, the Naibunga Wildlife Conservancy. These ef-forts seemed to have paid off in view of the fact thatthe region has the second largest population of wild-life outside the protected areas of Kenya, with equallyincreasing livestock populations (Kinnaird et al. 2012;Ngene et al. 2013; WRI et al. 2007).The central thesis in this study is that group-ranch-

level-driven and/or collective action-based innovationsin the management of livelihood assets are moresocio-ecologically resilient in comparison with household/individual-driven innovations. Despite receiving a numberof significant negative forces, including the loss of large

areas of grazing land through the 1904 and 1911 treatiesimposed by the colonial government (Keen 1962), the landfragmentation that accompanied the GR policy andbroader forces associated with increased globalisation, thesocio-ecological systems of the Laikipia Maasai have sur-vived fairly well.Socio-ecological system (SES) in this context is used

to refer to a GR made up of nature (e.g. water, pastures)and humans (e.g. their beliefs and practices), as well ascombined human-nature systems that are shown in co-evolved systems of management (adopted from Holling2001). The capacity of these SESs to absorb disturbanceand re-organise while undergoing change but still retainessentially the same function, structure and feedbacksindicates some level of resilience of the fundamentallivelihood assets. Livelihood assets are people’s strengths(capital endowments) that can be converted into liveli-hood outcomes (DFID 1999). They may be tangible (e.g.trees and land) or intangible (e.g. access to educationand information). Nurturing and combining a range ofthese assets (such as natural, financial, human, social orphysical) in innovative ways enables people to achievepositive livelihood outcomes.Livelihood diversification and land use change in the

arid and semi-arid lands of Eastern Africa (includingLaikipia) have been the subject of many studies(Campbell et al. 2003; Olson et al. 2004; Galvin 2009;Desta and Coppock 2004; Jillo et al. 2006). Differentconcepts have been put forward as inspiring liveli-hood diversification in arid and semi-arid regions.Among the Turkana, for example, impacts of drought,increasing insecurity and famine has forced sedentari-sation of once pure nomadic and semi-nomadic pas-toralists to explore alternative livelihoods (Watsonand Binsbergen 2008). There are examples of move-ment to non-pastoral livelihoods such as tourism,petty trades, fishing, wage employment and cultiva-tion. Alongside the livelihood diversification debate isthe aspect of climate change and its impact on pas-toral livelihood. Some scholars perceive pastoralists asvulnerable to climate change while others view themas the most capable to adapt to climate change, sincepastoral livelihoods are shaped to deal with scarceand variable natural resources (Nori and Davies 2007).This study aimed at understanding innovative path-

ways in the management of pastoral livelihood assetsamong the GRs in Laikipia County. Il Motiok GR wasused as a case study to investigate the unpredicted‘innovations’ in the management of natural and socialcapital. Key questions that were addressed included thefollowing: What are emergent innovations in GRmanagement of natural and social capital at both house-hold and larger community levels among the LaikipiaMaasai?; What drives the innovations?; and What are

Kibet et al. Pastoralism: Research, Policy and Practice (2016) 6:16 Page 2 of 13

the perceived and felt impacts of the innovations on theresilience of the SES?

Conceptual frameworkAll traditional resource management systems are underconstant change in response to stress, hazards, risks oropportunities and can be said to be in a form of adaptivecycle (Berkes et al. 2000; Walker et al. 2004). This studycontends that in the absence of colonial and post-colonial intervention, the Laikipia Maasai (like otherpastoralists) would have continued with their constantchange in managing their livelihood assets in responseto the uncertainty and unpredictability of their ecosys-tems due largely to climate dynamics. It is hypothesisedthat the creation of GRs and the accompanying policiesaltered the trajectory and probably also the rate of thatchange. Innovations in the management of natural andsocial capital and resultant resiliency are perceived asa function of climatic variables (e.g. rainfall frequencyand amounts), government policy directives and thesocial learning gained from neighbours and othersources. Other less direct drivers may include prevail-ing economic trends (market trends) and populationdynamics (unprecedented increase in population), aswell as advances in science and technology (e.g. mo-bile phone technology), all of which have combinedwith other forces to cause significant cultural change(Figure 1).It is also hypothesised that strategies adopted a range

from the household level (micro-system) to the level ofthe extended community (landscape). A previous studyhas shown that the level of vulnerability of householdsto climatic, economic and other shocks and the range ofoptions they can access to address such shocks differ be-tween wealthier and poorer households because of theircapital endowment (Hauck 2013). It is, however, tooearly to predict future sustainability of the emerging in-novations, but it is possible to speculate on their poten-tial long-term effect on the resilience of SES. The term‘resilience’ is used to mean the capacity of an SES to

sustain a desired set of ecosystem services in the face ofdisturbance and ongoing evolution and change (Biggs etal. 2012). The assumptions in this conceptual frameworkare that no external inputs get into the system and thatno one among the population is transiting out of thepastoral production system.

Study siteLaikipia County lies between latitudes 0° 18″ south and0° 51″ north and between longitudes 36° 11″ and 37°24′east. It covers an area of 9,462 km2. Il Motiok GR is oneof the 11 GRs in the region, lying in the northernmostpart of the county. The GR covers an area of 3,651 haand borders Mpala and Soita Nyiro private ranches tothe west, Koija GR to the north, Tie Mamut GR to theeast and Mukogodo private ranch to the south (Figure 2).The elevation ranges from 1,550 to 1,700 m, with gentleundulating terrain. The ranch lies between two majordrainage lines, Ewaso Nyiro River (permanent) andLosupukiai (seasonal river). The two drainage lineslargely influence the use of the ranch with wet seasongrazing occurring towards Losupukiai and dry seasonzones towards Ewaso Nyiro River side because of accessto permanent water.Il Motiok GR lies on the Laikipia Plateau, a classical

savanna ecosystem with a mosaic of clay, sandy andtransitional soils. The county is rich in large savannamammals such as elephants, giraffes, buffaloes, zebraand several species of carnivores among others. Amongthe endangered fauna in this county are half of Kenya’sblack rhino population, two thirds of the world popula-tion of Grevy zebras and the world’s sixth largest popu-lation of wild dogs (Boy 2011). The vegetation of thearea is wooded savanna dominated by several species ofacacia.The County has a variety of land tenure and land use

types. The biggest area of land (>50 % of County landarea) is categorised as large-scale ranching and farms.They are owned by individuals, companies and state orgovernment parastatals. A sizeable area was previously

Government

Neighborhood

Community

Group (village)

Households

Livelihood Assets (Natural & social capital)

Climate

Indirect Drivers: Economic, population, Science

& Technology, Culture

Group Ranch Management

& SES Resilience

Direct Drivers Platform (scale)

Figure 1 Conceptual framework showing innovations in the SES of GRs

Kibet et al. Pastoralism: Research, Policy and Practice (2016) 6:16 Page 3 of 13

held under a 999-year lease which was later revised to99 years (Kenya Constitution 2010). Common land usetypes under this category include commercial livestockproduction, a combination of livestock production andwildlife conservation, and pure wildlife conservation(Conservancies). Small but expanding land use types inthe County are the small-holder farms. These includeparcels of land awarded during government resettlementprogrammes following Kenya’s independence in 1963 to-gether with privately acquired lands. They are mainlyfound in the south and south-western parts of theCounty, and their dominant forms of land use are cropcultivation and agro-pastoralism. Pastoralism is yet an-other category, practised on land held under communalownership with livestock production as the main eco-nomic activity. Communal group ranches that are thefocus of this study fall within the pastoralism land usecategory. Laikipia County also contains government for-ests, wetlands and rapidly growing urban settlements(Kiteme et al. 1998).The study site has about 110 households with approxi-

mately 1,000 inhabitants (Kaye-zwiebel and King 2014)spread across four villages, namely Nasirian, Lorupai,Losiagi and Il Motiok. The community keeps cattle,sheep, goats and donkeys and most recently has adoptedcamels and poultry. The livestock stocking rates varygreatly following seasonal fluctuations that dictate

availability of pastures and water. In the recent past, ac-tive wildlife conservation has been introduced.

MethodsThis study was conducted between April 2012 andMarch 2014. The data collected included emerging inno-vations in natural and social capital, factors motivatingthese innovations and felt and/or perceived impacts ofthe new strategies on sustainability of pastoral livelihood.Natural capital was considered to include pastures, wild-life, livestock, minerals and vegetation while social cap-ital included networks, gifting, reciprocity, employment,education and wage remittance by relatives. Both pri-mary and secondary data were used in this study.Strategies used to collect primary data included semi-structure questionnaires, key informant interviews (KIIs),focus group discussions (FGDs) and participants’ directobservations through transect walks and photography.Both KIIs and FGDs purposely targeted men and

women older than 40 years who had consistently lived inthe area for more than 25 years, in order to benefit fromtheir long-term experience. KIIs were carried out bothin Il Motiok and the Mpala private ranch (PR). TheMpala ranch has had long-term collaboration with IlMotiok, and a number of its employees are residents ofthe ranch. Key informants included GR managementcommittee officials, self-help groups’ leaders, experienced

Figure 2 Map showing location of Laikipia County and the study site. Background details indicate land properties. Map adopted from Ojwanget al. 2010

Kibet et al. Pastoralism: Research, Policy and Practice (2016) 6:16 Page 4 of 13

herders and elders and those in wage employment. InMpala, the management and long-serving staff were tar-geted. Twenty-six KIIs were undertaken, six in Mpalaranch and the rest in Il Motiok GR. Eight FGDs, two ineach village, were held in which four to six people partici-pated. Separate FGDs were held for both genders to avoidmale dominance in the discussions. Interviews and FGDswere held in the local Maa language with assistance fromone woman and three young men, all fluent in bothEnglish and Maa languages. A total of 105 face-to-face in-terviews were carried out (targeting both men andwomen) making up 10.5 % of the total GR population.Fifty-two percent of the interviewees were women and therest were men.To appreciate household-driven initiatives and how

those initiatives differed with the level of wealth, twohouseholds, one ‘relatively rich’ household (with 35 trop-ical livestock unit (TLU)) and one relatively poorhousehold (with 7 TLU), were selected. This povertyranking was based on a household economy assessmentundertaken in North East Turkana, Kenya (Levine andCrosskey 2006). In this assessment, they observed thatfor a pastoral family to be able to feed its members andsurvive drought, each adult needs 6 TLUs. (1 TLU isequivalent to 250-kg animal live weight; 1 camel = 1TLU; 1 cattle = 0.7 TLU; 1 sheep/goat = 0.1 TLU, as perFAO (1986)). Using second order cybernetics, the twohouseholds were observed for one season. Second ordercybernetics is a tool not based on determining the factson the ground but on observing the observer. For asecond-order observation, the question is not ‘What isthere?’ but ‘How does the observer construct what heconstructs?’ It asks the question ‘What are the distinc-tions that are used by the observed-observer?’ (seeKaufmann 2007). In the context of this study, we aimedat isolating information derived by the observer (house-hold head) by observing ‘signals’ transmitted by traitcarriers (livestock or environmental attributes) that in-terested him (those ‘signals’ that made meaning to him).Observing animals’ behaviours, or range conditions,send ‘signals’ about declining or improving quality and/or quantity of pastures and the need for the observer totake certain actions. This was done mainly through ob-serving and recording the observer’s daily decisions andactions.Photography and transect walks guided by a commu-

nity person were also done. Five Google Earth maps(Image© 2014 DigitalGlobe) for 2007 to 2013 were usedto observe land use changes and also to estimate theincrease of land under cultivation and traditional enclo-sures locally known as olokerii. The data was qualita-tively analysed by coding recurring concepts andfrequencies calculated using SPSS software version 15.0(SPSS Inc. 1989 to 2006).

ResultsThe key innovations observed among the LaikipiaMaasai are provided in Table 1. Some of the innovationswere either household-level-driven initiatives or at thegroup ranch level and commissioned by elected officials.Natural and social capital innovations have been ad-dressed separately although they are discussed jointly inthe next section because of their interconnectedness. Itshould be noted that some of the innovations may notbe entirely attributed to GR formation but to otherbroader aspects of development such as globalisation ofeconomies, advancement in science and cultural dynam-ics, among others.

Innovations in natural capital resource useTwo broad categories of natural resource managementstrategies linked to the GR model were observed, pastureswap and use diversification.

Pasture swapPasture is a critical resource, and because of the uncer-tainty and unpredictability of the ecosystems in whichthey operate, pastoral communities go exceptional lengthsto manage it. Two types of pasture swaps were recorded,namely; ‘cooperation’ between private ranches (PRs) andGRs and trading in pastures or pasture leasing.Private-GR pasture alliances emerged in the early

2000s out of simmering tensions between pastoralistsand large-scale ranch owners over access to pasturesduring dry seasons. To promote cohesion, PRs agreed topermit pastoral groups access to pastures during timesof forage scarcity, subject to meeting some conditions.Below are some of the conditions set by the Mpala pri-vate ranch:

(i) Livestock owners meet the costs of ecto-parasitecontrol for their animals as well as for hiredherder(s) while grazing in Mpala. In 2013 and2014, the rate was Kshs 150 (approx. US$ 1.5)per head of cattle per month.

(ii) Each GR allowed access must organise to have alltheir cattle herded jointly for ease of controllinggrazing pattern, thus the need for a hired herder in(i) above. GRs nominated person(s) to be hired toherd their livestock.

(iii) Only cattle were allowed admission and sheep onlyunder special situations. Goats were not permittedat all due to the perception that they degrade therangeland.

(iv) Each PR set the maximum number of cattle to beadmitted at any given time to avoid overgrazing.For example, Mpala ranch allowed a maximum of800 cattle at any given time, principally from IlMotiok, Koija and Tie Mamut GRs.

Kibet et al. Pastoralism: Research, Policy and Practice (2016) 6:16 Page 5 of 13

Trading grazing rights (pasture leasing/agistment)Trading grazing rights to non-members of the GRs(mostly Somali camel herders) was yet another land useinnovation that began in 2001. The Somali herders pur-chased grazing rights to fatten their camels before sellingor during times of forage scarcity. The payment rate forgrazing one camel per month in 2013 was Kshs 300(approx. US$ 3.4). Between March and August 2013,there were 170 camels in the ranch (Godffrey Metiaki,2013, GR Chairman, pers. communication).

Expansion of Olokerii enclosures Expansion in struc-ture and function of traditional enclosures (Olokerii) wasobserved through transect walks as well as using satellitemaps. Between 2007 and 2013, the enclosures increasedby 38 % from 26 to 36 and their average size per enclos-ure tripled from approximately 0.4 to 1.3 ha..

Diversification in natural resource useBesides livestock production, the community has beenexperimenting with new livelihood options, using re-sources available but has hardly been exploited in thepast. Some of these include the following:

Charcoal making Between 2001 and 2009, the IlMotiok community experimented with the charcoal-making business but then abandoned it. This was cited

by 16 % of the informants, who said they had partici-pated in the business as charcoal makers, buyers, sellersor brokers. This was a group-ranch-level decision andwas sanctioned by the management committee on behalfof the community.

Crop cultivation Crop cultivation in Il Motiok GRbegan in 2007. In the last seven years (to the end of2013), the land under cultivation increased from about3.24 ha. to approximately 12.14 ha.. Crop cultivation wasconcentrated along the Ewaso Nyiro River, and in 2014,more than 20 % of the households were involved. Themajority of those involved in cultivation were peopleaged below 45 years with at least basic primary educa-tion. In a household that had cultivation field, both menand women were involved in the farm activities. In thefive years that cultivation has taken place on the ranch,successful harvests have been reaped only twice due tolimited rainfall, so it is hard to understand why individ-uals continue with this activity.

Harnessing tourism potential To benefit from the po-tential of tourism, GRs have been encouraged to setaside a portion of their land as wildlife conservancies.Nine GRs have set aside part of their land for the pur-pose of promoting wildlife conservation and tourism. InIl Motiok, a 10th of its land was set aside for wildlife

Table 1 Emergent innovations in the management of natural and social capital among group ranch pastoral communities inLaikipia, Kenya

Livelihood assets Emergent innovation Citations (n = 105) Percent frequency

Natural capital Pasture swap Trading grazing rights to non-members (agistment) 42 40

Private ranch - GR alliance 38 36

Expansion of Olokerii enclosuresa

Resource use Diversification Sand mining 63 60

Wildlife and tourism 38 36

Cultivation 29 28

Manure sale 19 18

Charcoal making 17 16b

Buying and selling of livestock 82 78

Rearing of camels 13 12

Increasing small stock (sheep and goats) 84 80

Rearing of poultry 23 22

Social capital Human Children formal schooling 82 78

Hiring of Scouts/Rangers 32 30

Wage remittance by salaried relatives 19 18

Networks Associations and self-help groups 48 46

Businesses/trade Eco-tourism related 13 12

Others 29 28aOlokerii enclosures were not part of citations but a critical observation made during field surveysbCharcoal making was officially banned in the GR in 2009

Kibet et al. Pastoralism: Research, Policy and Practice (2016) 6:16 Page 6 of 13

conservation, and a women’s group has established aneco-lodge facility for tourists, with help from a donoragency. Thirty-six percent of the informants cited tour-ism as a major source of income for the GR and house-holds involved in businesses related to tourism (e.g.supply of food and beadworks).

Mining of sand and stones Sand and stone miningstarted in Il Motiok GR in the year 2000. These activitiesoccur along flood plains and dry riverbeds (locally re-ferred to as luggas). Sixty percent of the informants citedsand mining as a major income earner for the GR. In2014, 7 tonnes of sand was worth Kshs 4,000 (approx.US$ 45) and employed two local persons for loading andpaid Ksh 400 each for labour. Sand harvesting and sell-ing was a group-ranch-level initiative, and those directlyinvolved were mainly young men.

Change in species composition, breeds and trade inlivestockThe change in the composition of livestock speciesowned by households, and the significance of each spe-cies in meeting family requirements, showed a majorshift in livestock production. More than 80 % of the re-spondents indicated that they have increased the num-ber of small stock (goats and sheep) relative to cattlewhich was the main livestock species historically. A live-stock census done on the ranch in 2010 shortly after asevere drought tallied the following: cattle 207, shoats3197, camels 20 and poultry 651. Twelve percent of thehouseholds have introduced camels, while 22 % ofhouseholds have introduced poultry. Less than 5 % ofhouseholds have introduced new breeds of goats andsheep, primarily Galla and Dorper, respectively.

Trade in livestock manureOnly 19 % of our informants mentioned manure sale assupplementing their household income, although, in ourhome visits, we observed that most if not all householdscollect and preserve manure for sale. The value of alorry full of manure was Kshs 10,000 (approx. US$ 115,2014 rate).

Dynamics in management of social capitalThe sedentarisation of households was an inevitable out-come of the establishment of GRs. One reason is thatthe land for nomadic pastoralism was heavily constrictedby the establishment of boundaries. Secondly, the cre-ation of permanent infrastructure such as water sources(e.g. dams) and schools made household mobility lessappealing. Members of Il Motiok GR settled in four vil-lages (Nasirian, Lorupai, Losiagi and Il Motiok). Com-munity members were free to choose where to settle inany of the villages. Historically, the Maasai settled in a

group of kraal camps that tends to gather around a dryseason water supply. Such a group was locally knownas enkutoto, a ‘settlement association’, and was a fairlystable political unit with its own governance struc-tures (Coldham, 1982).Increased reliance on purchased goods and services

from the marketplace by households has limited giftingand sharing to special occasions such as weddings andcircumcisions.

The existence of scouts/rangersScouts/rangers were a new institution established to ad-dress challenges such as cattle raids, poaching of wildlifeand enforcement of grazing protocols. The local youth(men only) were recruited and trained with help fromthe Northern Rangeland Trusts (an NGO operating inthe region) to scout for signs of security breach and onhow to use modern technologies such as high-frequencyradios and binoculars, among others skills. The rangerswere paid by the GRs through the Naibunga WildlifeConservancy Trust.

New social networksNew social networks requiring members to join moreformalised groups governed by mutually agreed or com-monly accepted rules, norms, by-laws and sanctionswere observed. Examples are the Nalepo women’s self-help group (that managed the Ol Gaboli Eco-lodge) anda beekeepers’ association.

Wage remittanceAbout 20 % of respondents cited employment as thecritical source of their household income. Among 11persons interviewed on wage employment, only one wasa woman. Most of those employed were within theneighbouring private ranches and occasionally visit thefamily within the month.

ReligionAlthough not cited by many as playing any role in there-organisation of social capital, it featured during theFGD session as influencing the future life of the commu-nity. The Christian converts in the area believed thatChristianity will instil new values as well as provide solu-tions to societal problems such as low literacy levelamong women, poverty, cattle raids and female genitalmutilation among others. As of 2014, two churches hadbeen constructed in the ranch. The extent of Christianityamong the population was beyond the scope of thisstudy.

DiscussionThe GR as a model for managing rangeland resourceshas evolved over time and has given birth to new

Kibet et al. Pastoralism: Research, Policy and Practice (2016) 6:16 Page 7 of 13

innovations, some of which are far from the path envis-aged at its conception. Some of the emergent approachesin the management of natural and social capital assetswere modifications of previously existing strategies;others were completely new ones. Household-driven ini-tiatives may have evolved as part of a wider diversifica-tion of livelihood strategies. They were individualised intheir nature and their benefits accrued to individualhouseholds. Innovations implemented at the communitylevel were collective actions and mean to provide com-mon good to GR members. Operationalisation of theseinnovations was confined by GR boundaries. Notableamong them were the trading of grazing rights, eco-tourism, charcoal making and sand mining.Vulnerabilities (stresses) attributed to climate variabil-

ity and changes, as well as trends such as governmentpolicies, markets, social learning and overall changinglifestyles, could have inspired some of the current inno-vations. Initiatives that brought immediate benefits suchas sand mining, eco-tourism and trading of grazingrights were popular even though their long-term sustain-ability was unknown.

Pasture swapThe establishment of PRs during the colonial period andGRs in post-independent Kenya fragmented pastoralgrazing land. Access to heterogeneity of landscapes is animportant attribute of the pastoral grazing landscape,and therefore, land fragmentation limits options forpeople and animals to access resources in a temporallyand spatially heterogeneous environment (Hobbs et al.2008). Dry season grazing areas, access routes to waterand migration routes were among other utilities weredisrupted by the GR model, thus jeopardising the flexi-bility needed in the utilisation of drylands. This was,however, not unique to Laikipia Maasai. What is uniquehere is how the GR model has survived for four decadeswhile a number in the southern rangelands barely lasted10 years (Veit 2011). The pasture-use cooperation(alliance) between PRs and GRs is one innovation thathas given a lifeline to Laikipia GRs. Traditionally,pastoral communities in Africa and elsewhere prac-tised reciprocity with neighbouring communities,under which pastures were shared during hard times(Fernandez-Gimenez 2000; Eriksen and Lind 2009).Partnership with private ranches is fairly new. The persist-ent and frequent scarcity of forage on the GRs comparedto their neighbouring PRs had been a source of tensionsin Laikipia. During the droughts of the 1990s and 2000s,pastoral groups in the county, out of desperation and as aresult of political machinations, trespassed into PRs. Thisprovocative action, instead of ending up in the courts, ledto a negotiated grazing agreement between the two par-ties. Besides easing tensions, the need for enhanced

collaboration in areas of wildlife conservation and securityin the region informed this strategy.A notable impact of the pasture-use alliance between

PRs and GRs was increased collaboration in the area ofsecurity, wildlife conservation and promotion of eco-tourism through the Laikipia Wildlife Forum andNaibunga Wildlife Conservancy. This agreement pro-vided a window for increased livestock mobility, an op-portunity for vegetation to regenerate and connectivityof people and habitats, which is an essential element inrange resilience (Biggs et al. 2012). Furthermore, theconditional joint herding proposed under negotiatedgrazing agreements between PR and GRs has promotedcohesion among members of the GR. The members haveto come together when making a decision concerningtheir livestock-herding strategies. These attributes pro-mote SES resilience through collective actions (Coppockand Desta 2013).

Trading of grazing rights (agistments)Trading of grazing rights or agistments as referred to byRobert and Mcallister (2010) involves allowing non-members of a ranch to graze their livestock at a fee. Thiswas one of the community-level initiatives and was dir-ectly linked to GR status as knowledge of ranch bound-aries by lessee was essential to avoid conflicts withneighbours. The motivation for leasing land to non-members (particularly Somali camel herders) was eco-nomic benefits. The money earned makes it possible forthe GR to support education for members’ children as wellas improve social amenities (e.g. buying of desks inschools). Declining grass resource and perceived en-croachment by woody plants on the ranch could have alsoinspired the undertaking to increase browsing as a controlmeasure. Unlike the non-pastoralists currently viewed as athreat to Maasai pastoral livelihoods in Kajiado and Narok(Sundstrom et al. 2012), camel herders in Laikipia have inthe immediate past created some form of symbioticrelationship, which is addressed later in this paper.Unfortunately, the GR did not have means to estimate sus-tainable stocking rate to avoid potential land degradationand possible conflicts as have been reported from otherparts of Kenya (see http://www.the-star.co.ke/news/2014/04/15/herders-and-ranchers-clash-in-taita-taveta_c925582,http://www.hiiraan.ca/news4/2014/Nov/77135/kenya_maa-sai_group_wants_somali_herders_out.aspx). Trading ingrazing rights has not only provided income but alsopromoted social capital; there has been some trans-formation of relationships by which existing collabor-ation has fostered establishment of new relationships.

Olokerii enclosuresThese ‘privately owned’ enclosures were traditionallyused for nursing sick animals, as a postpartum recovery

Kibet et al. Pastoralism: Research, Policy and Practice (2016) 6:16 Page 8 of 13

wing for livestock and nursery for young calves and kidsor restraining newly acquired livestock (Kibet andOyieke 2009). It is not clear whether there was an ac-cepted size of olokerii; however, the majority was lessthan 1 0.4 ha. Olokerii was ‘owned’ by individual house-holds, and therefore, access by non-household memberswas through permission. The structure and functions ofthese enclosures have, however, been transforming overtime. Alongside the traditional use, olokerii are currentlyused as a dry season grazing reserve, a strategy driven byindividual household desires.Motivations for the expansion of olokerii enclosures

were varied. Decline in availability of household labour,increased individualisation of pastoral operations, de-cline in number of livestock to sustain mobility and in-creased sedentarisation are some of the factors. Notableimpacts of olokerii expansion were the upsurge in treefelling for fencing and maintenance, a decline in area ofland under common use thus increasing grazing pres-sure on plants in ‘open access’ areas and the expansionof invasive species (Opuntia subalata) previously usedas a live fence on these enclosures. Although fencing hasnot reduced available habitat, it has limited connectivityand access to micro-habitats such as floodplains knownto host more diverse plant species. On a positive note,plant species susceptible to heavy grazing were likely toget refuge in the enclosures and minimise potential localextinction as observed in Ethiopia (Mengistu et al.2005). Habitat fragmentation and limited connectivitydepresses SES resilience.

Cultivation Cultivation along the Ewaso Nyiro Riverwas one of the household-based emergent strategiesaimed at diversifying livelihood options. Influence fromNGOs operating in the area as well as neighbours (suchas Koija GR where cultivation begun earlier) may havetriggered the emergence of crop production in Il MotiokGR. Cultivation, like charcoal making, is a new type ofland use. Shifting cultivation as well as fencing reducesriverine forest cover and, more importantly, destroys dryseason grazing pastures. Similar to olokerii enclosures,this may heighten tensions and/or conflicts due to pos-sible trespasses. This was likely to increase herdinglabour in future, weaken community cohesion andincrease agitation for land subdivision into freeholdas noted elsewhere in the country (Mwangi 2005;Sundstrom et al. 2012). A study by Kaye-zwiebel andKing (2014) on five GRs in the region, noted on fourof the ranches (Koija GR was the exception), that themajority of individuals surveyed did not favour landsubdivision into individual titles. This was a surprising ob-servation given that the Koija community appears to havethe strongest social assets (in terms of food sharing, live-stock lending and sanctioning) necessary for maintaining

a resilient communally-based pastoral livelihood. In-creased ‘individualisation’ of land through cultivationcould have motivated this position. Between 2007 and2014, there was an increase of over 200 % in the areaunder cultivation, and homesteads built near culti-vated fields increased from one to eight. Increasedcultivation is also likely to escalate water stress down-stream. Studies on natural flow on the major rivers inthe region indicate a gradual decline over the yearsdue to increased upstream abstractions for irrigatedagriculture with increasing conflicts between farmersupstream and pastoral communities downstream (Mungaiet al. 2004; Ngigi 2006). Presence of large population ofwildlife in the region (WRI et al. 2007) and widespreadcrop raiding by elephants within small-scale cultivatedfarms in Southern Laikipia (Graham 2006) are warningsof escalating future confrontations. Moreover, cultivationin itself is inconsistent with the earlier investments inwildlife conservancy and a tourist facility (eco-lodge).Livestock trespassing into crop fields was also inevitable,and this would strain the relationship between neighbours.Experience from other regions indicates that cultivation infragile ecosystem, such as Il Motiok, compromises habitatconnectivity andspecies diversity, and may also straincommunities’ cohesiveness between those with crop fieldsand those more interested in livestock well-being (Galvin2009; Sundstrom et al. 2012; Biggs et al. 2012).

Charcoal Charcoal making initially commenced as ameasure to control bush encroachment on the ranch.Perceived increase in the density of trees on the ranchwas seen as posing risks of wildlife attacks due to declin-ing visibility, particularly from elephants. Felling ofwoody plants along access paths was therefore commis-sioned by GR officials for the purpose of improving thesafety of residents, particularly school-going children. Itwas also seen as an opportunity to generate income fromcharcoal sale. Charcoal making was initially spearheadedby non-Maasai; however, through social interaction,members of the ranch community acquired the skillsand got involved in the business. As more people partici-pated in the business, guidelines set earlier were flouted.Tree felling went far beyond the designated areas. Aftereight years of wanton felling of trees, targeting mostvaluable forage species such as Acacia tortilis and Acaciamellifera, it became evident that the practice was notsustainable and it was officially stopped. The high num-ber of livestock lost as an aftermath of the 2009/2010 se-vere drought may have informed the decision. Selectiveharvesting of certain species of acacia threatened bothforages for livestock, especially the browsers (e.g. goatsand camels), and weakened the ecological insurance(functional redundancy and response diversity) that theharvested species provide during extreme weather events

Kibet et al. Pastoralism: Research, Policy and Practice (2016) 6:16 Page 9 of 13

(Walker et al. 2004; Kahmen et al. 2005). Recognisingthat SESs are complex adaptive systems presupposesthat experimentation and learning are necessary for soci-etal learning and enhanced resilience (Biggs et al. 2012).Valuable lessons derived from the charcoal-making ex-periment are that active adaptive management still formspart of this GR’s management style (Fazey et al. 2005)and that collective action can be an effective means ofgroup problem solving (Coppock and Desta 2013).

Sand and stone miningIncreasing sedentarisation and expanding urban centresin the region caused increased demand for buildingsands. With the establishment of county governments inthe country, there has been unprecedented growth ofurban centres, and Nanyuki town is recognised as amajor consumer of building sand from the GRs in theregion. Sand mining is fairly recent in Il Motiok com-pared to the neighbouring GRs of Il Polei and TieMamut. This activity was motivated by the need to raiseincome, and like charcoal making, the business wascommissioned as a GR initiative. The communityseemed highly excited about sand harvesting given thehigh percentage of those who support it. Although sandmining is currently minimal, it is affecting criticalhabitats - the floodplains and dry riverbeds (locallycalled luggas). These sites provide important ecosystemservices such as soil erosion regulations, provision ofwater, dry season grazing pastures, habitat for wildlifeand cultural values. These services will be compromisedin the long term. Some of the already-felt impacts fromsand mining include increased erosion along the pathsused by heavy lorries ferrying sand as exemplified bydeep gullies and frequently changing pathways on theranch and emergence of conflicts between members ofneighbouring GRs over ownership of sand resources onshared boundaries and also within GR members compet-ing for sand-loading jobs. For example, in 2013, elders ofTie Mamut and Il Motiok had to agree on a formula toshare income and jobs from the sand on their sharedboundary (Losupukiai lugga) after hostilities occurred.The spread of invasive species is a potential threat, giventhe large distances covered by lorries ferrying the sand.This study therefore foresees that increased sand miningwill cause loss of dry season grazing areas, and declinein community cohesion between neighbours, which to-gether with enhanced soil erosion are all likely to increasevulnerability to environmental shocks, thus weakeningSES resilience.

Changes in herd composition, species and breedsTraditionally, cattle formed the dominant herd in theMaasai households relative to sheep and goats (jointlyshoats), but this was seen to be changing. The acquisition

of new breeds of goats and sheep was associated withwealthier households. The following reasons were cited bythe community for increase adoption of camels and shoats(i) Both camels and goats have higher tolerance to waterand forage shortages (ii) Goats: ease of acquiring breedingstock and faster multiplication rate after losses, and avail-ability of ready market (iii) Camels: continue to producemilk even during dry season when most lactating livestockdry up.The Il Motiok community as landlord relied heavily

on camel milk supplied by their Somali tenants duringand shortly after the severe drought of 2009/2010 asmost of their livestock were either dry or had beendriven to graze out of the ranch. This experience couldhave influenced the rising adoption of camels. The roleof camel milk as a source of food and family income islikely to rise with increase in climate variability (Elhadiet al. 2015). Increased trade in livestock, facilitated byproximity to two markets (Kimanjo and Oldo Ng’iro)where livestock is the main trade commodity, will influ-ence livestock dynamics in the future. Acquisition ofnew species and adoption of new breeds increase diver-sity at the species and genetic level, respectively. Thisenhances SES resilience by increasing diversity responseas well as functional redundancy against adverse eventssuch as drought (Biggs et al. 2012).

Re-organisation of social and human capital Follow-ing sedentarisation of pastoral households, settlementvillages replaced traditional inkutot (settlement associa-tions) as the smallest formal political segment of theMaasai (Coldham 1982). The established villages becamethe smallest units of GR administration, since officialsare elected based on these units. The new institution im-posed by the GR policy replaced the traditional institu-tions where natural resources were managed by acouncil of elders. Based on observations made duringthe study and information from informants, the IlMotiok GR committee have largely been effective intheir ‘foreign policy’, which can be exemplified by deal-ings that involve non-members, such as negotiatinggrazing agreements and employment opportunities fortheir members with the adjacent large private ranchesand leasing agreements with charcoal makers and sandmerchants. However, enforcement of internal regulationsaddressing natural resource use was facing challenges.Social sanctions play an important role in the provisionof public good (Miguel and Gugerty 2004), and effectiveadministration of social sanctions demonstrates the cap-acity of a community for self-governance. Weakness inenforcing rules governing natural resources was notedto vary, with some ranches in the region seen as moreeffective than others (Kaye-zwiebel and King 2014). Graz-ing protocols and expansion enclosures (olokerii and crop

Kibet et al. Pastoralism: Research, Policy and Practice (2016) 6:16 Page 10 of 13

fields) were not being regulated by the GR committee offi-cials on Il Motiok ranch and were blamed by communitymembers although effective management demands col-lective action by all members.Herding is crucial in the debate about sustainability of

pastoral livelihood because of the centrality of livestockmobility in the production system (Butt 2011; Coppolillo2000; Oba 1994). In the past, herding among the Maasaicommunity was a shared activity among relatives, friendsand/or neighbours (Bekure et al. 1991). This has chan-ged with decline in number of livestock, increasedindividualisation of production and labour shortage.Additionally, government policies that encourage school-ing of children and sedentarisation by pastoral commu-nities are transforming livestock management andsociety in general. Most children (both boys and girls) ofschool-going age attend school, and livestock herding iscarried out either by hired person(s) for rich householdsor by adult women in poorer households. Shortage ofherding labour is reflected in the violations of grazingprotocols in Il Motiok GR as women would combineherding and other household chores by grazing livestocknear homes. During this study, some GRs were experi-menting with joint herding with the help of PRs and alocal NGO. Hired labour was used to regulate grazinginside PRs as well as within the GR where HolisticManagement experimental trials had been initiated. Al-though its full potential was yet unknown, some house-holds were already excited about the strategy.The importance of traditional social networks among

the Il Motiok community seemed to be breaking downas exemplified by increased income inequality amonghouseholds and insignificant gifting or exchanges be-tween rich and poor (Hauck 2013; see also Kaye-zwiebeland King 2014, Bekure et al. 1991). New social networkshave emerged to boost dwindling social capital. Some ofthese networks are beekeepers and beadwork associa-tions for negotiating better prices for goods and services.Table banking where women save and loan money tomembers was taking over gifting/reciprocity as a way tosupport the recovery of people who had lost their liveli-hood. Emergence of these networks to promote collect-ive action was not unique to Il Motiok GR and was seento fortify social and human capital (Coppock and Desta2013) and thus enhance SES resilience.Another important observation with social re-

organisation among the Il Motiok community was thesocial barriers surmounted by adoption of innovation.The majority of the married women in the communitydid not participate in off-ranch employment. However,the formation of home-based economic activities (e.g. OlGaboli Eco-lodge) for tourists offered women opportun-ities to work as cooks, cleaners or waiters without re-strictions from their husbands. In addition, women

make beaded jewellery, weave mats, supply foodstuff andeven get paid to entertain tourists through songs anddance.A number of policy implications can be drawn from

this study. Whereas it is a well-established fact that live-stock mobility is central in promoting sustainablepastoralism from accessing spatially and temporally het-erogeneous resources, not much is being done toachieve the same. Increasing complexity of land usetypes in previously dominant pastoral land suggests theneed for responsive policy change to ensure that fragileecosystems are not overly exposed to irreversible degrad-ation. There are opportunities provided by community-to-community social learning to adapt to unpredictable anduncertain environment, and positive elements derivedfrom such knowledge should be recognised and if neces-sary promoted. Policy initiatives therefore should seek toaddress these issues as well as develop means to promotecollective actions.

ConclusionsIt is evident from the results that the GR model hasshown unpredictable innovation pathways in the man-agement of natural and social assets not envisaged at itsinception. These innovations consist of both new andmodified forms of traditionally known practices, some ofwhich were household- and/or community-level-drivenprocesses. There are many factors that may have influ-enced the emergence of new innovations; climatechange, development agents (e.g. government, NGOs)and social learning from neighbours as part of a widerchange in lifestyle are likely to have been some of theimportant ones. People interviewed on the ranch weremostly positive about innovations that were seen asbringing in immediate tangible benefits/income (e.g.sand mining, manure sale, crop cultivation). However,they did not often show awareness that the potentiallong-term effects on socio-ecological system resiliencecould be negative. Official abandoning of charcoal mak-ing as a diversification strategy after it had been in oper-ation for five years indicates that adaptive learning stilldictates the management strategies that the communityadopts.It is indicative from this study that interventions such

as the GR model evolve in space and time, and we sug-gest that flexibility both in funding and policies isneeded to allow unintended or unpredicted innovationsto emerge as implementation progresses. The increasingcomplexity of common property use requires responsivepolicies to address emerging ‘new’ land use changes (e.g.tourism, cultivation, sand mining and others) in previ-ously purely pastoral grazing land. Equally importantwould be to initiate/strengthen policies that would pro-mote collective action. In Kenya, policies such as the

Kibet et al. Pastoralism: Research, Policy and Practice (2016) 6:16 Page 11 of 13

Youth Development Fund where a prerequisite for gov-ernment support is the formation of a formal cohesivegroup can be customised to suit pastoral communitiesand encourage collective action. Similarly, it is impera-tive that pastoral land remain as common property,given that further fragmentation is considered detrimen-tal to socio-ecological system sustainability.

AcknowledgementsThis study was partially supported by FOREST-GEO grants and Centre forSustainable Drylands Ecosystems and Societies. We thank Godffrey Metiaki(then Chairman of Il Motiok group ranch) for allowing the team to undertakeresearch in their ranch. We appreciate the work done by field assistants,Agnes Keshine, Daniel Metiaki, Nicholas Kipsuny, Jacob, Peter and TimothyMetiaki, in data collections and language interpretation. Celia Nyamweruedited the manuscript for which we are thankful. The Mpala Research Centresupported logistics for which we are grateful. Lastly, we acknowledge theanonymous reviewers for their comments for it greatly improved the qualityof the manuscript.

Authors’ contributionsSK, MMN, LM and DK designed the research; SK carried out data collectionand data analysis and wrote the manuscript while MNN, LM and DKprovided technical guidance on methodology, data synthesis and editing ofthe manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Competing interestsThe authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Author details1Department of Land Resource Management and Agricultural Technology,University of Nairobi, P. O. Box 29052, 00625 Nairobi, Kenya. 2CTFS-ForestGEO,Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, NMNH West loading dock, 10th &Constitution Ave. NW, Washington 20560-0188, USA.

Received: 24 November 2015 Accepted: 6 July 2016

ReferencesBekure, S., P.D.D. Leeuw, B. Grandin, and P. Neate. 1991. The Maasai: Social-

historical context and group ranches. In Maasai herding: An analysis of thelivestock production system of Maasai pastoralists in eastern Kajiado District,Kenya, ed. S. Bekure, P. de Leeuw, B.E. Grandin, and N. PJ. PJ. Addis Ababa:International Livestock Research Institute.

Berkes, F., J. Colding, and C. Folke. 2000. Rediscovery of traditional ecologicalknowledge as adaptive management. Ecological Applications 10(5): 1251–1262.

Biggs, R., M. Schlüter, D. Biggs, E.L. Bohensky, S. BurnSilver, G. Cundill, and P.C.West. 2012. Toward principles for enhancing the resilience of ecosystemservices. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 37(1): 421–448.

Boone, R. B., Burnsilver, S. B., Thornton, P. K., Worden, J. S., and Galvin, K. 2005.AQuantifying Declines in Livestock Due to Land Subdivision. RangelandEcology & Management 58: 523–532.

Boy, G. 2011. Laikipia - a natural history guide. Nanyuki, Kenya: Laikipia WildlifeForum publication.

Burnsilver, S., and E. Mwangi. 2007. Beyond group ranch subdivision: Collectiveaction for livestock mobility, ecological viability, and livelihoods, (No. 66).DC: Washington.

Butt, B. 2011. Coping with uncertainty and variability: The influence ofprotected areas on pastoral herding strategies in East Africa. HumanEcology 39(3): 289–307.

DFID (DEPARTMENT FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT) (1999) SustainableLivelihoods Guidance Sheets. Overseas Development Institute, UK.

Campbell, D. J, Gichohi, H., Mwangi, A., Smucker, T. 2003. Globalization and LocalHeterogeneity: An Overview of Diversity in Land Use and DevelopmentIssues in Loitokitok Division, Kajiado District , Kenya. Land Use ChangeImpacts and Dynamics (LUCID) Project. Working Paper 21.Nairobi, Kenya:International Livestock Research Institute.

Coldham, S. 1982. The registration of group ranches among the Maasai ofKenya - some legal problems. Journal of Legal Pluralism 20: 1–16.

Coppock, D.L., and S. Desta. 2013. Collective action, innovation, and wealthgeneration among settled pastoral women in Northern Kenya. Range Ecologyand Management 66: 95–105.

Coppolillo, P. B. 2000. The Landscape Ecology of Pastoral Herding: SpatialAnalysis of Land Use and Livestock Production in East Africa. Human Ecology,vol. 28(4): 527–560

Desta, S., and D.L. Coppock. 2004. Pastoralism under pressure: Tracking systemchange in Southern Ethiopia. Human Ecology 32(4): 465–486.

Elhadi, Y.A., D.M. Nyariki, and O.V. Wasonga. 2015. Role of camel milk in pastorallivelihoods in Kenya: Contribution to household diet and income, 5(8).Pastoralism: Research, Policy and Practice.

Eriksen, S., and J. Lind. 2009. Adaptation as a political process: Adjusting todrought and conflict in Kenya’s drylands. Environmental Management43(5): 817–35.

FAO. 1986. Production yearbook 1985: No. 39.. Rome: FAO.Fazey, I., J.A. Fazey, and D.M.A. Fazey. 2005. Learning more effectively from

experience. Ecology and Society 10(2): 4.Fernandez-Gimenez, M.E. 2000. The role of Mongolian nomadic pastoralists’

ecological knowledge in rangeland management. Ecological Applications10(5): 1318–1326.

Galaty, J. 1994. Having land in common: the subdivision of maasai group ranchesin Kenya. Nomadic Peoples, Number 34/35: 109–122.

Galvin, K.A. 2009. Transitions: Pastoralists living with change. Annual Review ofAnthropology 38(1): 185–198.

Graham, M. 2006. Coexistence in a land use mosaic? Land use, risk and elephantecology in Laikipia District. Cambridge: Kenya.

Government of Kenya, 2010. Kenya Constitution. Government Printers, Nairobi.Hauck, S. 2013. Pastoralist societies in flux: The impact of ecology, markets, and

governmental assistance on the Mukugodo Maasai of Kenya. Unpublished PhDDissertation submitted to Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology.USA: Princeton University.

Hobbs, N.T., K.A. Galvin, C.J. Stokes, J.M. Lackett, A.J. Ashd, R.B. Boone, R. Robin,and P.K. Thornton. 2008. Fragmentation of rangelands: Implications forhumans, animals, and landscapes. Global Environmental Change 18(4): 776–785.

Holling, C.S. 2001. Understanding complexity of economic, ecological, and socialsystems. Ecosystems 4(5): 390–405.

Jillo, A., A.A. Aboud, and D.L. Coppock. 2006. From herd diversification to livelihooddiversification as a response to poverty: The case of the Waso Boran of NorthernKenya (No. 06-05 PARIMA).. Davis, USA.

Kahmen, A., J. Perner, and N. Buchmann. 2005. Diversity-dependent productivityin semi-natural grasslands following climate perturbations. Functional Ecology19: 594–601.

Kaufmann, B. 2007. Cybernetic Analysis of Socio-biological Systems: The Case ofLivestock Management in Resource-Poor Environments. Margraf PublishersGmbH, Scientific books, 2007 Kanalstraße 21; D-97990 Weikersheim.

Kaye-zwiebel, E., and E. King. 2014. Kenyan pastoralist societies in transition:Varying perceptions of the value of ecosystem services. Ecology and Society19(3): 17.

Keen, J. (1962) Memorandum on Masai Treaties of 1904 and 1911. Presented atthe Kenya Constitutional Conference, Lancaster House, 23 March, 1962

Kibet, S. and Oyieke, H. 2009. Possible integration of traditional knowledge,gender roles and beliefs in modern conservation. A commissioned study forResearch Programme on Sustainable Use of Dryland Biodiversity (RPSUD),National Museums of Kenya, Nairobi.

Kimani, K. and Pickard, J. 1998. Recent trends and implications of Group Ranchsub-division and fragmentation in Kajiado District, Kenya. The GeographicalJournal, vol. 162(2):202–213.

Kinnaird, M., T. O’Brien, and G. Ojwang. 2012. Sample count aerial surveys as amonitoring tool for wildlife and livestock: A case study from Laikipia County,Report submitted to Laikipia Wildlife Forum, Nanyuki, Kenya.

Kiteme, B P., Wiesmann, U., Kúnzi, E., and Mathuva, J M. 1998. A Highland-Lowland System under Transitional Pressure: A Spatio-Temporal Analysis.Eastern and Southern Journal of Geography vol. 8 Special number, September1998.

Levine, S., and A. Crosskey. 2006. Household economy assessment of North EastTurkana.

Mengistu, T., D. Teketay, H. Hulten, and Y. Yemshaw. 2005. The role of enclosuresin the recovery of woody vegetation in degraded dryland hillsides of centraland northern Ethiopia. Journal of Arid Environments 60(2): 259–281.

Miguel, E., and M.K. Gugerty. 2004. Ethnic diversity, social sanctions, and publicgoods in Kenya.

Kibet et al. Pastoralism: Research, Policy and Practice (2016) 6:16 Page 12 of 13

Mungai, D. N., Ong, C. K., Kiteme, B., Elkaduwa, W., Sakthivadivel, R. 2004. Lessonsfrom two longterm hydrological studies in Kenya and Sri Lanka. Agriculture,Ecosystems and Environment vol. 104: 135–143

Mwangi, E. 2005. The transformation of property rights in Kenya’s Maasailand:triggers and motivations. CAPRi Working Paper No. 35. International FoodPolicy Research Institute 2033 K Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006 U.S.A.

Ngene, S., J. Mukeka, F. Ihwagi, J. Mathenge, A. Wandera, G. Anyona, T. Nyumba, L.Kawira, I. Muthuku, J. Kathiwa, P. Gacheru, Z. Davidson, J. King, and P. Omondi.2013. Total aerial count of elephants, Grevy’s zebra and other large mammals inLaikipia-Samburu-Marsabit ecosystem in (November 2012). Nairobi: ShadrackNgene.

Ng'ethe, J.C. 1992. Group ranch concept and practice in Kenya with specialemphasis on Kajiado District. In Kategile J. A. and Mubi S. eds); Future oflivestock industries in East and southern Africa. Proceedings of a workshopheld at Kadoma Ranch Hotel, Zimbabwe, 20–23 July 1992. ILCA (InternationalLivestock Centre for Africa), Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. 227 pp.

Ngigi, S.N. 2006. Hydrological impacts of land use changes on water resourcesmanagement and socio-economic development of upper Ewaso Ng’iro riverbasin in Kenya.. PhD Dissertation, Delft University of Technology.

Nori, M., and J. Davies. 2007. Change of wind or wind of change? Climate change,adaptation and pastoralism. The World Initiative for Sustainable Pastoralism(WISP). Nairobi: IUCN.

Oba, G. 1994. The role of indigenous range management knowledge fordesertification control in northern Kenya, 1–38. Uppsala, Sweden.

Ojwang’, G., Agatsiva, J. and Situma, C. 2010. Analysis of Climate Change andVariability Risks in the smallholder Sector; Case studies of the Laikipia andNarok Districts representing major agro-ecological zones in Kenya. FAO,Rome, Italy.

Olson, J.M., S. Misana, D.J. Campbell, M. Mbonile, and S. Mugisha. 2004. Thespatial patterns and root causes of land use change in East Africa. (No. 47).

Peacock, C. 1987. Herd movement on a Maasai group ranch in relation totraditional organisation and livestock development. AgriculturalAdministration and Extension, vol 27(2): 61–74.

Robert, R., and J. Mcallister. 2010. Livestock mobility in arid and semi-aridAustralia: Escaping variability in space. Pastoralism 1(1): 37–54.

Sundstrom, S., J.F. Tynon, and D. Western. 2012. Rangeland privatization and theMaasai experience: Social capital and the implications for traditional resourcemanagement in Southern Kenya. Society and Natural Resources 25(5): 483–498.

Thornton, P.K., BurnSilver, S.B., Boone, R.B, and Galvin, K.A. 2006. Modelling theimpacts of group ranch subdivision on agro-pastoral households in Kajiado,Kenya. Agricultural Systems 87: 331–356.

Veit, P. 2011. The rise and fall of group ranches in Kenya.. Focus on Land in Africa.Walker, B., Holling, C. S., Carpenter, S. R., Kinzig, A. Resilience , Adaptability and

Transformability in Social – ecological Systems. Ecology and Society, vol 9 (2) 5Watson, Dj, and J. Van Binsbergen. 2008. Livelihood diversification opportunities for

pastoralists in Turkana, Kenya, ILRI Research Report 5. ILRI (InternationalLivestock Research Institute), Nairobi, Kenya, 43.

Western, D., Groom, R., Worden, J. 2009. The impact of subdivision andsedentarization of pastoral lands on wildlife in an African savanna ecosystem.Biological Conservation vol. 142(11): 2538–2546.

World Resources Institute; Department of Resource Surveys and Remote Sensing,Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources, Kenya; Central Bureau ofStatistics, Ministry of Planning and National Development, Kenya; andInternational. Livestock Research Institute. 2007. Nature’s benefits in Kenya. Anatlas of ecosystems and human well-being. Washington, DC and Nairobi:World Resources Institute.

Wayumba, R. N. and Mwenda, J. N. 2006. The Impact of Changing Land Tenureand Land Use on Wildlife Migration within Group Ranches in Kenya: A CaseStudy of the Amboseli Ecosystem The Impact of Changing Land Tenure andLand Use on Wildlife Migration within Group Ranches in Kenya: A Case Studyof the Amboseli Ecosystem. Promoting Land Administration and GoodGovernance 5th FIG Regional Conference Proceedings, Accra, Ghana 8-11thMarch 2006

Submit your manuscript to a journal and benefi t from:

7 Convenient online submission

7 Rigorous peer review

7 Immediate publication on acceptance

7 Open access: articles freely available online

7 High visibility within the fi eld

7 Retaining the copyright to your article

Submit your next manuscript at 7 springeropen.com

Kibet et al. Pastoralism: Research, Policy and Practice (2016) 6:16 Page 13 of 13